What Are Some of The Craziest Religions Out There?

[u9y42]

[...] Its about controling the masses, if you had nothing to live for past this life why should you obey the few?

Precisely; organized religion has always been little more than a form of population control preying on people's need to understand and control the world around them. I'd figure that as our understanding increases, people would stop relying on myths and legends for this, but I guess most people are still far from that point unfortunately.

[btcusury]

somewhat, it's an interesting theory, but i doubt many will agree with you.

Some simply don't want to believe (too different from their current beliefs, don't feel comfortable with it)
Some simply don't understand.

I think your theory makes sense, but i'm not sure if it's correct, it probably is at least close to the truth, and it's well thought out. I like people who at least try to make sense of the universe rather than to just accept whatever their teachers tell them. It's a very important subject to know where we came from and where we stand, yet most people ridicule you when you bring up the subject. Possibly because the consequences of them being wrong on their beliefs might mean they have to radically alter their lifestyle and way of thinking and it will bring them out of their comfort zone.

Well said, and I would extend the meaning of "teachers" to mean authorities of ANY kind, including parents and scientists, who themselves are parroting what other people have said, and so on.

There is this unconscious tendency to assume that one has to either embrace or reject an idea, as if it were not possible to hold contrasting cosmological models in contemplation without investing emotional energy in judging them... especially since judgment in this case can only come from incomplete information (consider the data set and the huge number of unknown unknowns).

Generally, in the ego-dominated Western culture, the older one becomes, the more the ego identifies with beliefs, thus the more difficult it becomes to change one's mind. For that same reason (older people less likely to adopt crypto), most people posting here are young folks whose minds are still moldable.

Humans appeared in the sequence of about 4 billion years worth of evolution, and though the origins of life aren't yet completely understood, the evolution of species is not a random process.

Then, what you're basically doing is throwing the concept of god to the fringes of our current knowledge and saying that since this hasn't been understood yet, god must have done it. That is nothing more than a modern example of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. All in all, you have a weird definition of the word "plausible", if you find that to be more logically sound and credible. And then, the real problem with that is, it really doesn't help us in any way whatsoever: it doesn't advance our understanding of the universe in any way, and it doesn't even allow us the chance to test it out directly, so science will just continue to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, while theories like those will just be forced to continually retreat, as they have for centuries.

Only religiously-brainwashed people in the West "throw the concept of god to the fringes of our current knowledge". You can by no means say the same about Eastern and mystical knowledge.

Not only is the idea that "the origins of life aren't yet completely understood" a humongous understatement, it's a question derived from premises that rely on invalid assumptions. Have you ever heard about the idea of the "hard problem of science"?

You have no idea how much information is out there that you are missing. You are relying on authority to tell you what we know, what we seek to know, and even what is real.

[cech4204a]

All of them are crazy but i think the craziest is googlism. I'm so happy that nobody forced me to be religious.

[btcusury]

All of them are crazy but i think the craziest is googlism. I'm so happy that nobody forced me to be religious.

They forced you to believe in a number of religions that are not called religions because they are more fundamental to your mind's enslavement. The most insidious of them is called statism. Another is money.

[zimmah]

Christianity and Islam, these people actually believe there's an invisible man up in the sky watching us!

inb4 religious people rage

how is that more crazy than believing that humans are the most advanced lifeforms we know of? And they just appeared by a random process?

In my opinion it's much more plausible to believe the universe was created by a much more advanced being that is possibly outside of our 4 dimensions, which would equate to a god in all possible senses of the meaning god. Since he's outside of the dimension of time itself (and possibly created the very concept of time in the first place) it would not create a paradox of 'well how did god suddenly appear?'. God just always was, then he created all the concepts of 'speed of light', 'time', 'space', 'physics', and what not. He kind of created his own programming language so to speak, and within that language he wrote the universe into being. All the rules of physics (such as F=m*a and E=mc^2) are just part of the code, and every object is just an object written using the code.

I don't think that's too weird to believe, considering the alternatives.

Humans appeared in the sequence of about 4 billion years worth of evolution, and though the origins of life aren't yet completely understood, the evolution of species is not a random process.

Then, what you're basically doing is throwing the concept of god to the fringes of our current knowledge and saying that since this hasn't been understood yet, god must have done it. That is nothing more than a modern example of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. All in all, you have a weird definition of the word "plausible", if you find that to be more logically sound and credible. And then, the real problem with that is, it really doesn't help us in any way whatsoever: it doesn't advance our understanding of the universe in any way, and it doesn't even allow us the chance to test it out directly, so science will just continue to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, while theories like those will just be forced to continually retreat, as they have for centuries.

Evolution does not explain how the universe came to be, nor does it explain how life itself started.

The universe tends to go from order to chaos if left alone

Life tends to decay into death after a while.

Death does not bring life.

Chaos does not bring order.

With those simple FACTS, one can conclude evolution is impossible.

Natural selection and genetics on a small scale can produce different breeds of the same species, but they will always be the same species, the same animal. No new animal is ever formed, and no new animal will ever be formed, unless by divine intervention. I can show you many facts and evidence on how ridiculous the theory of evolution is. It's just insane anyone even beliefs in this. The theory of evolution defies all the laws of nature itself.

What you are doing is basically the same of what you are accusing me of, you don't want to belief in a being that is higher than you because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions, therefore you create a story that disproves god, without having actual proof that there is no god. But you keep repeating the same lie over and over until even you yourself start believing in it. However evolution is simply just that, a lie. Now i'm not saying that disproving evolution and abiogenesis proves god per se, but fact still remains that there are no better explanations to explain the order and life in the universe, while all scientific experiments show that life and order do not suddenly appear anywhere under any known circumstances.

To deny that god exists is a bigger leap of faith than to say 'the laws of nature do not make sense unless some divine being that is above/outside the laws of the universe must have started this whole process'.

[btcusury]

^ Please define "divine intervention". If you can't define it, then how are your beliefs more grounded than those of an evolutionist? How are you not grasping at straws like the evolutionists?

[zimmah]

while theories like those will just be forced to continually retreat, as they have for centuries.

name one example of where science has proven the bible wrong.

And i'm not talking about the catholic church interpretation of the bible, or any other church for that matter, i'm taking about the bible itself.

[zimmah]

Islam and Scientology.

I dont understand how someone could follow a religion created by a Sci-Fi writer.

But it may be as believable as a God upthere treating us a puppets giving us free will and if we fail we burn for ever.

that's what the catholics say, that's not what the bible says, and that's not what a loving and just god would do.

If God knew me before I was concieved, did he make me to go to hell?

He knows you, but he doesn't know your actions since you have free will. And even though you might not get granted everlasting life in paradise, you'll definitly not go to hell, as there is no such thing. There's either eternal life on earth, in the conditions god meant the earth to be (or heaven for a select few) or just nothingness, cease to exist after you die. No torment or pain or anything. Not all that bad, it's your own choice after all. What god would give infinite punishment for finite mistakes? would that be just or loving? absolutely not!

Is there not enough room in hell? Why cant we all just go to heaven? Cause adam and eve ate a fucking apple?

There's no hell. And heaven was not meant for humans, earth was (adam and eve were placed on earth, not in heaven, heaven is meant for angels).

If everything happens for a reason, did god make a baby to be aborted?

Abortion is equal to murder under biblical law.

Its about controling the masses, if you had nothing to live for past this life why should you obey the few?

what?

[zimmah]

somewhat, it's an interesting theory, but i doubt many will agree with you.

Some simply don't want to believe (too different from their current beliefs, don't feel comfortable with it)
Some simply don't understand.

I think your theory makes sense, but i'm not sure if it's correct, it probably is at least close to the truth, and it's well thought out. I like people who at least try to make sense of the universe rather than to just accept whatever their teachers tell them. It's a very important subject to know where we came from and where we stand, yet most people ridicule you when you bring up the subject. Possibly because the consequences of them being wrong on their beliefs might mean they have to radically alter their lifestyle and way of thinking and it will bring them out of their comfort zone.

Well said, and I would extend the meaning of "teachers" to mean authorities of ANY kind, including parents and scientists, who themselves are parroting what other people have said, and so on.

There is this unconscious tendency to assume that one has to either embrace or reject an idea, as if it were not possible to hold contrasting cosmological models in contemplation without investing emotional energy in judging them... especially since judgment in this case can only come from incomplete information (consider the data set and the huge number of unknown unknowns).

Generally, in the ego-dominated Western culture, the older one becomes, the more the ego identifies with beliefs, thus the more difficult it becomes to change one's mind. For that same reason (older people less likely to adopt crypto), most people posting here are young folks whose minds are still moldable.

Humans appeared in the sequence of about 4 billion years worth of evolution, and though the origins of life aren't yet completely understood, the evolution of species is not a random process.

Then, what you're basically doing is throwing the concept of god to the fringes of our current knowledge and saying that since this hasn't been understood yet, god must have done it. That is nothing more than a modern example of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. All in all, you have a weird definition of the word "plausible", if you find that to be more logically sound and credible. And then, the real problem with that is, it really doesn't help us in any way whatsoever: it doesn't advance our understanding of the universe in any way, and it doesn't even allow us the chance to test it out directly, so science will just continue to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, while theories like those will just be forced to continually retreat, as they have for centuries.

Only religiously-brainwashed people in the West "throw the concept of god to the fringes of our current knowledge". You can by no means say the same about Eastern and mystical knowledge.

Not only is the idea that "the origins of life aren't yet completely understood" a humongous understatement, it's a question derived from premises that rely on invalid assumptions. Have you ever heard about the idea of the "hard problem of science"?

You have no idea how much information is out there that you are missing. You are relying on authority to tell you what we know, what we seek to know, and even what is real.

it's funny how most atheists talk about science, while their methods are unscientific.

True scientists (which are very rare, as the scientific community is heavily censored and peer-pressured) think like this: "Whatever i know now is based on current knowledge, but whenever i find evidence that suggests otherwise i have to recreate my perception of the universe to fit all evidence into a new model that fits the puzzle together more accurately"

In other words life and our understand of it is one giant puzzle which we can't even begin to understand, and every now and than we find another piece of the puzzle. And whenever one is found we get to understand it better, but only if we allow ourselves to re-arrange the puzzle pieces we already had, instead of rejecting the new piece of the puzzle because it doesn't fit without re-arranging your flawed world view.

There is absolute truth, but to think your truth is absolute is flawed in itself, no human knows the absolute truth of everything, or we would be gods ourselves. Always keep learning and always consider the fact that you COULD BE wrong. Explore other ideas and see if they could be true, even if you don't believe in them, explore them and find out why they can or can't be true.

Only if you explore an idea fully you will be able to tell if it's plausible or not, don't just reject it because you THINK it's flawed, that's just blind faith in your own knowledge. That's completely the opposite of science!

[zimmah]

^ Please define "divine intervention". If you can't define it, then how are your beliefs more grounded than those of an evolutionist? How are you not grasping at straws like the evolutionists?

like i already explained earlier in the tread, even though the bible does not specifically state how god created everything, logically i would say god exists and always existed outside our dimensions.

And because of this, time as we know it does not apply to god. Therefore, he could have easily created the universe (with the universe i mean all objects inside the universe as well as all the laws of physics) 'in the beginning' (it was the beginning for us, not for him, he already was, just not in our 4 dimensions).

Since he created the 4 dimensions we know, he can interact with it, possibly even visit it, but he is not limited to it, nor is he limited to the laws of physics inside it.

Note that this is just my interpretation on how it can be, this vision is not stated specifically in the bible, it's just my own logical conclusion which may be wrong.

Divine intervention would be any act that would not happen normally under the laws of the universe, (miracles), and are directly caused by an entity (or entities) that do not belong to our 4 dimensions.

[btcusury]

it's funny how most atheists talk about science, while their methods are unscientific.

True scientists (which are very rare, as the scientific community is heavily censored and peer-pressured) think like this: "Whatever i know now is based on current knowledge, but whenever i find evidence that suggests otherwise i have to recreate my perception of the universe to fit all evidence into a new model that fits the puzzle together more accurately"

In other words life and our understand of it is one giant puzzle which we can't even begin to understand, and every now and than we find another piece of the puzzle. And whenever one is found we get to understand it better, but only if we allow ourselves to re-arrange the puzzle pieces we already had, instead of rejecting the new piece of the puzzle because it doesn't fit without re-arranging your flawed world view.

Well put; you are "absolutely" right!

There is absolute truth, but to think your truth is absolute is flawed in itself, no human knows the absolute truth of everything, or we would be gods ourselves.

Now wouldn't THAT be a surprise!

Always keep learning and always consider the fact that you COULD BE wrong. Explore other ideas and see if they could be true, even if you don't believe in them, explore them and find out why they can or can't be true.

Or, put another way, resist the egoic urge to embrace any one particular belief to make your (its) own.

Only if you explore an idea fully you will be able to tell if it's plausible or not, don't just reject it because you THINK it's flawed, that's just blind faith in your own knowledge. That's completely the opposite of science!

Though opposite in concept, that pretty much perfectly describes modern-day "scientific" inquiry by the "scientific" establishment. And religion.

^ Please define "divine intervention". If you can't define it, then how are your beliefs more grounded than those of an evolutionist? How are you not grasping at straws like the evolutionists?

like i already explained earlier in the tread, even though the bible does not specifically state how god created everything, logically i would say god exists and always existed outside our dimensions.

And because of this, time as we know it does not apply to god. Therefore, he could have easily created the universe (with the universe i mean all objects inside the universe as well as all the laws of physics) 'in the beginning' (it was the beginning for us, not for him, he already was, just not in our 4 dimensions).

Since he created the 4 dimensions we know, he can interact with it, possibly even visit it, but he is not limited to it, nor is he limited to the laws of physics inside it.

Note that this is just my interpretation on how it can be, this vision is not stated specifically in the bible, it's just my own logical conclusion which may be wrong.

Divine intervention would be any act that would not happen normally under the laws of the universe, (miracles), and are directly caused by an entity (or entities) that do not belong to our 4 dimensions.

Your thinking is sound, except when you slip in the Bible as if an authority of ontological inquiry. What makes you believe the Bible has this status? What Bible are you reading? Even if KJV, it's still very far from the original Aramaic. What's your explanation for the Dead Sea Scrolls? What's your view on Calvinism, dispensationalism, and the apocalyptic Christian Zionists?

[bitmarket.io]

I say one of the craziest religions is Googlism.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

And then Creativity.

http://creativitymovement.net/

ALL religions are crazy.

nuff said.

[taylortyler]

Scientology is one for sure.

[the joint]

I say one of the craziest religions is Googlism.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

And then Creativity.

http://creativitymovement.net/

ALL religions are crazy.

I wouldn't go that far.  Buddhism teaches that which is the result of observation and experience, and they even provide replicable methods of achieving different spiritual goals, the purposes of which are integral to its core doctrine..  It basically teaches you to utilize the scientific method.

In my opinion, the great thing about Buddhism is that it adds to empiricism an emphasis on the observation of internal processes and even meta-observation.   It's unfortunate that knowledge gained from this scope of observation is often disregarded as totally insignificant.

[btcusury]

^ That's a rather gross misrepresentation of Buddhism... What you are doing here is elevating the scientific method to a position it has not earned (and cannot earn), and then using it as a superset (a kind of God figure) within which you believe that you must fit other ontologically-distinct approaches to understanding what reality is. To understand where Buddhism is even coming from, you have to go back to Plato and ignore the Aristotelian separation of physics and metaphysics, science and natural philosophy, for that is the reductionist distinction that has turned science/philosophy into the religion of science. Instead of oral traditions and Church on Sundays, this religion is handed down via the unconscious belief in authority. Here's probably the nicest place to start to get a grip on Buddhism:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Alan+Watts+Buddhism

[bitmarket.io]

I say one of the craziest religions is Googlism.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

And then Creativity.

http://creativitymovement.net/

ALL religions are crazy.

I wouldn't go that far.  Buddhism teaches that which is the result of observation and experience, and they even provide replicable methods of achieving different spiritual goals, the purposes of which are integral to its core doctrine..  It basically teaches you to utilize the scientific method.

In my opinion, the great thing about Buddhism is that it adds to empiricism an emphasis on the observation of internal processes and even meta-observation.   It's unfortunate that knowledge gained from this scope of observation is often disregarded as totally insignificant.

What kind of meth are you on? Buddhism isn't religion. It's a lifestyle.

[the joint]

I say one of the craziest religions is Googlism.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

And then Creativity.

http://creativitymovement.net/

ALL religions are crazy.

I wouldn't go that far.  Buddhism teaches that which is the result of observation and experience, and they even provide replicable methods of achieving different spiritual goals, the purposes of which are integral to its core doctrine..  It basically teaches you to utilize the scientific method.

In my opinion, the great thing about Buddhism is that it adds to empiricism an emphasis on the observation of internal processes and even meta-observation.   It's unfortunate that knowledge gained from this scope of observation is often disregarded as totally insignificant.

What kind of meth are you on? Buddhism isn't religion. It's a lifestyle.

That's a very unimportant semantic distinction, and I would argue that Buddhism certainly can be considered religious (e.g. Mahayana Buddhism could be classified this way due to its incorporated deities).

[the joint]

^ That's a rather gross misrepresentation of Buddhism... What you are doing here is elevating the scientific method to a position it has not earned (and cannot earn), and then using it as a superset (a kind of God figure) within which you believe that you must fit other ontologically-distinct approaches to understanding what reality is. To understand where Buddhism is even coming from, you have to go back to Plato and ignore the Aristotelian separation of physics and metaphysics, science and natural philosophy, for that is the reductionist distinction that has turned science/philosophy into the religion of science. Instead of oral traditions and Church on Sundays, this religion is handed down via the unconscious belief in authority. Here's probably the nicest place to start to get a grip on Buddhism:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Alan+Watts+Buddhism

Maybe I should preface my response by letting you know I've studied (and practiced aspects of) Buddhism for well over a decade and have taken college courses and read over a dozen Buddhist texts (including original sutras, several books by the Dalai Lama, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, etc.) on the topic.  I wouldn't consider myself an expert on Buddhism especially when it comes to it's history, but I believe I have a very solid grasp on itsphilosophy.

That being said, I think you misunderstood the Buddha as he virtually replicates the scientific method (at least, as much as logically possible; forget that the scientific method came MUCH later) and applies it introspectively. mmIt's not an exact analogue of the scientific method, but it's very similar in that observation is the basis for learning -- about the nature of the self rather than the nature of a Positivistic Universe) -- and that with this knowledge one can form hypothesis about the self, to set goals for one self, and implement methods to attain these goals.  The Buddha made it exceptionally clear that all information is filtered through our own unique observational window (even information discovered and shared by others) and thus we need a sound way to depend on ourselves.

However, you raise an interesting consideration in that The Buddha would not consider reality in dichotomous terms, though that doesn't change the fact that the Buddhist method for acquiring knowledge both within and without looks a lot like science.  This is implicitly shown through the Buddhist conception of the word 'karma' which is perfectly synonymous with 'cause and effect."